The set of things that appear hard and the set of things that are actually hard overlap a lot less than one would expect.
This is something I have believed a long time, but which continues to surprise me when I try new appears-to-be-hard things.
This is something I have believed a long time, but which continues to surprise me when I try new appears-to-be-hard things.
The best *systematic* explanation of a major difference I've seen is here: paulgraham.com/schlep.html
My far less systematic version: "If I need X's cooperation to do Y, and X would give that cooperation to a professional who possessed A, B, and C... is that the minimum possible set of requirements, truly, and could I bet that professional in, say, two $UNITS of determined work."
"This sounds like fake-it-until-you-make-it."
It's not intended as that.
"You need a corporate officer to sign this? And that requirement is driven by compliance concerns? So the least competent corporate officer who has ever signed this that you were happy to let through..."
It's not intended as that.
"You need a corporate officer to sign this? And that requirement is driven by compliance concerns? So the least competent corporate officer who has ever signed this that you were happy to let through..."
"... is someone who was physically breathing and had a piece of paper identifying them as a corporate officer, right, that is the true requirement? OK. I trivially pass that. I am definitely not less competent than the least competent person you'd ever let through this gate."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
